congress_law_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming no destructive behavior. It adds value by listing the specific information returned (sponsors, CBO cost estimates, committee reports, constitutional authority statement), which goes beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already establish safety, the description enriches behavioral understanding, earning a 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, included details, and required parameters. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any redundant or unnecessary information. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lists the key types of information returned (sponsors, CBO cost estimates, committee reports, constitutional authority statement) and specifies the three required parameters. With annotations declaring readOnlyHint, the tool's behavior is fully covered. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by detailing the content, making it complete for an agent to understand the tool's input and output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for congress, law_type, and law_number, including examples. The description merely restates that these three parameters are required, adding no extra semantic value. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no additional information is provided to raise the score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get detailed information about a specific public or private law' with a specific verb and resource, listing included details like sponsors and CBO cost estimates. This distinguishes it from sibling congress tools that focus on bills, amendments, or committees, making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description notes that using the tool requires congress number, law type, and law number, giving clear required context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like congress_bill_details or congress_committee_reports, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. With many sibling tools, this lack of comparative guidance limits the score to 3.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.